Daily Times Editorial May 26, 2013

Caretakers’ over ambition Pakistan entered onto terra incognita when caretaker governments were appointed at the Centre and in the provinces before the elections. These were to be consensus or Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) (as a last resort) appointees with a limited mandate of conducting free, fair, transparent elections and keeping the day to day business of government going until a new elected government could take office. The federal caretaker government under interim Prime Minister (PM) Mir Hazar Khan Khoso in particular seems to have misunderstood (unintentionally or deliberately) the limitations on its freedom of action in the short period it would remain in office. Secondly, the caretaker federal government appears to have mistaken being in ‘office’ (for limited purposes) with being in ‘power’. The latter is the exclusive preserved of elected governments. Caretaker governments cannot arrogate to themselves the same privileges, particularly on far reaching policy matters, as a duly elected government. Some of the unwise ‘decisions’ of the caretaker federal government have been challenged in the Supreme Court (SC), and some struck down, while the ban on CNG for vehicles over 1,000 cc has been withdrawn by the caretakers themselves on Law Ministry advice. This does not leave the caretakers smelling of roses. The charges against the caretaker federal government extend from corruption allegations to illegal appointments, transfers and promotions of high officials in different departments. On corruption, we thought after the departure of the previous PPP-led government, the same level of attention by the SC would no longer be necessary. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The caretakers’ own Law Ministry advised that the wholesale transfer, appointment and promotion of high officials was beyond the scope of the caretaker government. That view has been upheld by the SC in a writ petition against these measures moved by PML-N leader Khwaja Mohammad Asif. Twenty-two federal secretaries were transferred, with some being moved back after a few days or weeks and others being shuffled around like ninepins. The SC has issued contempt notices to the PM, Secretary Establishment Division and the PM’s Principal Secretary over this arbitrary measure/s that run against the SC’s judgements on the issue. The SC has also stopped the PM from appointing his Principal Secretary as the Federal Ombudsman after the retirement of Shoaib Suddle. To make confusion (and criticism) worse confounded, the PM stands accused of favouring two of his sons by appointing them against posts they did not deserve or could be appointed to under the rules. Other favoured individuals were also graced with such largesse. The SC rightly stopped the caretaker government from disbursing development funds during its tenure, a step that went far beyond its limited mandate. Now the issue of the caretaker government issuing a ‘mini-budget’, i.e. new taxation measures, has been challenged by the PPP as unconstitutional, since only a government duly elected and enjoying the support of parliament (or at least a majority of the house) can impose taxation. The PPP’s stance on this is strengthened by the fact that it holds a majority in the Senate, a situation that could give it the power to strike down any fiscal measure that is patently beyond the scope of the caretakers. As if this short litany of the ‘sins’ of the caretaker government were not enough, there is considerable criticism of the caretakers for their inability to conduct transparent elections, although it must be conceded that perhaps the level of ‘rigging’ or administrative anomalies in the polling are not of such proportions (as admitted even by Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, the main complainant and agitator against such alleged misdemeanours) as to invalidate the mandate delivered by the electorate. Admittedly, Pakistan was on terra incognita when inducting and undergoing this caretaker experiment for the first time under the 18th Amendment. Valuable lessons are there for the learning for all stakeholders and state institutions from the whole experience. Being open to such lessons can help to improve the process for the future. But the obvious temptation by the caretakers to take steps and decisions that exceeded their purview is something that requires safeguards to make future such governments aware of and confined to what is theirs by law and best practice, and not indulge in the ‘usual’ self-aggrandizement or vested interest decision making that has been the bane of all our governments as far back as memory serves.